Solicitors to require mandatory ‘statement of competence’

All solicitors will be required to commit to a statement of continuing competence from next year, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has confirmed.

The publication of the statement was approved by the SRA board yesterday after a 12-week consultation with the profession.

The statement forms part of the new approach to the education and training of solicitors, moving away from the prescriptive system of continuing professional development.

The overall benchmark has three sections: the statement itself, the statement of knowledge and the threshold standard. It will be published on the SRA website in early April, at the same time solicitors are able to move to the new approach to continuing competence.

The new approach will be compulsory for all new and existing solicitors from November 2016.

The competence statement itself will be made up of four elements: ethics professionalism and judgement; technical legal practice; working with other people; and 'managing themselves and their own work'.

The final category introduces the concept of applying good business practice, including demonstrating an adequate understanding of the financial context in which solicitors are working and managing available resources efficiently.

Martin Coleman, chair of the SRA’s education and training committee, said: ‘The competence statement gives important guidance to solicitors on the standards they are expected to meet.

‘This is for work we are now undertaking on the competences we expect of would-be solicitors, and also to ensure continuing competence following the abolition of the mandatory continuing professional development hours requirement.’

The consultation received 72 formal responses, most of which supported the competence statement as a benchmark of what solicitors should be able to do.

A proposal will now be submitted to the Legal Services Board to amend the notes under principle five of the SRA Principles. This will make it clear that, for a solicitor, meeting the competences set out in the competence statement is a requirement of the principle which states ‘you must provide a proper standard of service to your clients’.

I should have done basket weaving and then the LPC it would have helped me with understanding indicative behaviours and stakeholders (or should that be steakholders?mmm) and outcomes focussed regulation - what happened to prevention better than cure - why can't they speak to lawyers in lawyers language or clear English not management / lets confuse everyone with ambiguity speak.Lawyers have partners and directors and clients not stakeholders or whatever new term they find for secretaries (document facilitators/ creators) or receptionists (telephonic communicators/ front desk ambassadors) please keep it real and so we can all understand remember the plain English campaign? Do they have nothing else to do but come up with these terms to make it look like they actually do something to justify the salaries they earn from the various lawyers fees. They also scrapped management awards and repaced it with IT awards like a computer system will deal with the hiring and supervision of staff - and that the latter is not important - the priorities have changed within the profession.IT awards are for PC magazines not for the SRA to judge as such although some aspects maybe relevant. They are supposed to set an example and lead by example which they do not do - for sure.

This is so depressing. So, after dealing with all the existing layers of compliance, regulation and accreditation and obtaining the PII required to cover themselves if they do screw up, solicitors will now also have to sign a piece of paper pointlessly stating they are 'competent'. It's humiliating How many other professions have to do all this?? How are the public supposed to respect us if our own regulatory body needs this level of reassurance?!

Also, I believe that anyone who attests to being competent in all areas of their work at all times is either deluded, supremely arrogant, misguided or a combination of these. I freely admit there are times when I see I'm failing at something or doubt my ability because I'm a free-thinking human being with flaws like everyone else, not a robot programmed to 'competent' mode. In such situations, I pull my socks up smartish and get back on track. Does the SRA really want an army of robots who deny ever having blips or bad days? That is unrealistic and short-sighted.

I wonder what the motivation for this is. The sentence "demonstrating an adequate understanding of the financial context in which solicitors are working and managing available resources efficiently" concerns me. If, for example, legal aid reforms or cuts are challenged in the future, will the MOJ dismiss those challenges on the basis that thousands of solicitors have signed to say that they can achieve competence and are therefore not justified in complaining? I foresee that this could tie solicitors' hands in all sorts of ways, including being a reference document in SDT proceedings & professional neg claims i.e. "You signed this form but then you acted incompetently. Therefore, it is clear that you were falsely presenting yourself as competent from the start" etc.

Why can't they just leave us alone to do our jobs? Sorry to whine but I'm already so frustrated by the injustices of the legal aid cuts and other restrictions on access to justice that this adds insult to injury. Being a part of this profession is becoming soul-destroying.

I don't think that there is anything objectively wrong with the Certificate of Competence. The CPD system was widely criticized, but we are all now used to the tick box approach it mandates, so it has become acceptable. But it was never perfect. What troubles me about the Certificate is the role of the poor old COLP (in my case, me) who may be expected to ensure some level of truth or honesty in the certificates of the solicitors in his or her firm. Confirmation that all COLPs have to do is check colleagues have signed the blessed thing would be welcome!

What a pity the College of Law sold out to CLT! I used to enjoy two days away at Ross-on-Wye being brought up to date and having time to chat with old friends and lecturers. Why can they not be brought back? The first day was non-contentious and the second contentious, so whichever side of the great divide you were one one day might do it, or if like me a SP both were needed. Two such days would equate to 16 hours per annum and job done. Now with CLT you had, say, a whole day on SDLT.

Frankly I'm glad I'm out of it and just rely on The Practical Liar to keep up.

Competence is fitness to undertake a legal procedure or the ability to understand a legal process.

If you are competent when you confirm you are competent then all is good.

If you are subsequently found to have been incompetent when you confirmed you were competent, how can you be penalised, you were incompetent. Res ipsa loquitur. Just using res ipsa loquitur in a sentence should be enough for full certification for life, but I digress.

I guess we have to wait and see what the rule says but I do love these new regulations. You have to admit that in the old days when lawyers had proper ethical training, careful supervision and we all had a copy of the annotated Code of Conduct it was really quite dry and dull ~ I mean you could actually read the rules in one place, understand them easily, get your answer to a specific problem quickly and solve it yourself.

Now you need a mnemonic memory and a masters in double speak to understand outcomes focussed and risk based client solutions, not to mention the non-exhaustive indicative outcomes the SRA requires to ensure compliance with the particular contexts covered by the principles, taking of course, into account, supplementing the mandatory Outcomes with the non-mandatory “Indicative Behaviours.”

Again I digress but can anyone imagine what would happen to the traffic death toll if the people who write this stuff re-wrote the Road Code.

Now any young hip-hop person with a degree in basket weaving can do the LPC and be advising real people with real problems for money in a year or two. He can sign as many certificates as you put in front of him to self certify his competence.

I just ask can we all get a big golden bordered self signed diploma/ certificate to hang in our office with a seal (maybe a picture!) and all done up fancy being a "Certificate of Legal Competency" with a cool red ribbon maybe. Can’t get enough of that shit. The clients love it. What about other self certificates? Let our imaginations RUN WILD. Think of the reassurance if this great idea spread to the other professions. How much better would you feel if you could read your surgeons glossy self certified certificate of competence just as the gas mask dropped on your face. I certify that I am a good surgeon. Signed Me.

Finally, is it competence beyond any reasonable doubt, or competence on the balance of probabilities? What about probable cause? Reasonable suspicion? Set the bar low is my advice. If you are able to sign – you pass.

The response to this nonsense proposal is nigh on unanimous . .
If the regulators read the strength of this response you would expect them to question their wisdom (sic) unless as with Utopians and Etremists everywhere they believe they are always in the right and on a mission
As to what they should have done. Hmmn? 16 hours pa was a bit on the heavy side but a compulsory one day a year is sensible for all of us in our chosen area and probably the competent and conscientious will do that . As previous commentators have predicted the incompetent will just sign the form!

Recent research shows that the lower an IQ a person has, the more certain they are of their competence. The more intelligent you are the more self reflection and self doubt crowds in. So the first people who send in their declaration should be removed from the roll.
Yours Dubiously

One of the many benefits of reading the Gazette online is the ability to see on a cumulative basis what I happening to the profession.

Change, when it is positive, can still be a difficult exercise for some lawyers, but actions in the name of innovation must not become a mere cloak for the piecemeal emasculation of our profession by over zealous regulators and others.

I see from recent articles that the LSB is fascinated by the idea of third parties holding client funds such as in France, but why should we emulate alien concepts which will collide with the modern demands of a commercial common law system moving at high speed?

What about firms with large probate and trust departments?

Are lawyers in the USA really mistrusted when it comes to holding client funds?

Now we see the SRA asking lawyers to give simplistic, but wide ranging in their effect regulatory warranties, which seem innocuous, but once more tighten the screw of unnecessary regulation to the detriment of the profession.

The Law Society must now reconnect with its members by challenging robustly what the regulators are articulating since I fear for its future if ordinary solicitors like me feel they are being pushed to the edge.

The SRA and the LSB are engaging in regulatory activitism of the worse kind, looking for solutions for problems which don't exist and feeding a narrative that parts of the profession are dishonest, weak, leaderless and on their knees.

How does this all look to the public, who demand impartial and ethical legal services, but could end up with an empty shell of a legal system as profit centric "innovation" ousts integrity as the defining quality of the practise of law.

Why all the gloom and doom?
Why all the cynicism?
When I qualified there was no CPD. You were just expected to make sure that you kept up to date with the law. Reading the Gazette, browsing the law reports and attending those lectures/ conferences and so on that seemed interesting and relevant.
Then along came CPD and a whole training industry was established. Just think: 130,000 solicitors at 16 hours each per year equates to about one thousand man hours of training every year.
We all moaned and groaned when it happened, about the waste of time and the expense, and then we all got used to trawling through the available courses, and selecting the cheapest and nearest that seemed vaguely relevant, and got on with our lives.
Now the clock is being reset to where it was, with a few small buttons added.
All you are going to have to do is:
1. Think about what you need to do to maintain and improve your skills as a solicitor. (Don't you subconsciously do this all the time?)
2. Decide what if anything you need to do to accomplish that.
3. Do it by whatever route seems best - go on a course, read a book, research it on the internet, talk to other solicitors or whatever.
4. Having done all that you should be able feel you are competent to practise as a solicitor.
The only added suggestion is to formalise the above (making notes) so that you have record of what you have been up to - partly for your own peace of mind, and partly in case the SRA come in with their big boots on.
Why all the fuss?

If it wasn't so alarmingly sinister in its implications for both clients and true professionals, it would be laughable. I keep trying to make sure it's not actually 1 April and really is just a joke...but no matter how many times I check, it keeps being Friday 13 March - damn it!

Surely all that would have been required instead of the arbitrary requirement 16 CPD points was to have 16 RELEVANT CPD points with a solicitor declaring its areas of practice each year. Would that not make more sense? (The Bar do something similar I think). I know some people complain that training is expensive but that it hardly an excuse not to keep yourself up to date and you who do complain about that, whoever you are, may be the reason for this ridiculous turn of events! So thanks for that!

The really competent practitioner is more likely to question their competence than the truly incompetent who is too incompetent to know they are incompetent.

Is a mistake a real indication of incompetence? I would certainly say not - show me a solicitor who has been in practice for more than a year (or less) who has never made a mistake and I will show you a liar...or someone who is too incompetent to know they've made mistake, of course …

Calm down, Dear.
Its all to do with Outcome Focussed Regulation. A system of regulation that was rigorously tested by the then Financial Services Authority, just prior to the banks completely screwing up the world economy.
How many bankers were prosecuted, let alone disciplined for their antics.
Did someone shout "None!"
You can do what you like chaps.

The unhappy truth is that the LS and SRA care not a jot for any views that are not part of their politically correct agenda. It's just like dealing with the BBC. These people are utterly convinced that their bureaucratic agenda is all for the best. They need to do this to justify taking the fat cheque every month. So who loses out? Well it's only every practising solicitor as well as those aspiring to join the legal profession. These victims do not matter. The LS is not there to serve solicitors. It's there to serve itself. It enjoys having political views and expressing them. This is much more fun than getting rid of the regulation and control of the profession. Actually these people are very selfish and dangerous.
Where can you buy a decent gibbet these days?

I take it that we can expect to see our NHS surgeons and other consultants certifying their continuing competence.
Is an "unsatisfactory outcome" res ipsa loquitur of incompetence? Does it require a series of unachieved expectations to qualify as incompetence?
What, actually is "competence"? Could one certify that "I'm competent but I just can't get the staff, these days, you know"?
And, of course, a finding of incompetence triggers a separate "Offence" of Wrongful certification...is that more heinous than being wrong about something?
Is one expected to be "Omni-competent" or does one certify fit for limited purposes?
Is it time for the SRA to be asked to Certify their competence to stir their own tea?

You are competent until you prove yourself incompetent, but you may be incompetent in a single instance, or is that just being human and making a mistake? Are you incompetent if a judge disagrees with your legal advice and rules against your client?

Anyway, this garbage form is better than having to pay an accredited CPD providers and waste valuable fee earning or leisure time.

Auntie Eadie - Absolutely none! The powers that be would not sit by and watch the loss of 'jobs for the boys' at either the SRA or the LS; where would they get another such well paid, well pensioned job turning out so much drivel?

At some stage the profession has simply got to come together to save itself. For decades now the bureaucrats have been gradually encroaching in their well-meaning way. Their control of the profession through The Law Society and government is now overwhelming. Extravagant language is to be avoided, but a revolution by practising solicitors is the only route out of this morass. Solicitors need to come together to form a new, free professional association dedicated to promoting individual responsibility with the opportunity to practice law without all the fetters and hindrances now in place. Membership cards of The Law Society should be torn up, and the whole rotten. political organisation should be exposed as a self-serving bloodsucker.
Someone needs to raise the standard here. Is there hope out there somewhere?

Well, during the 'consultation process' re Duty sol contracts and fee cuts the MOJ conceded that due to the reduction in fees crime sols service to clients would inevitatably and could therefore justifiably fall below a usual 'good' standard ergo making it arguably 'incompetent'. Therefore any criticism of crime sols not being competent can now be met with an MOJ-sanctioned defence!

Without wanting to sound like a troll. This might not be a bad idea. Instead of blindly racking up CPD points that may or may not be relevant to the law you actually need to be sharp on, this might make us stop and actually ask ourselves whether we feel confident in our confidence levels.
In the same way that we ask ourselves if we are competent to take on a matter that might be outside our usual field, we will have to ask ourselves if we are keeping up with developments, confident that we understand the law we are working with, and running our businesses well.
This questionnaire might just force us to be a little more self aware. I for one am quite conscious of the fact that there are certain aspects of my working life that are going very well, and other areas where I need to improve.
Self certification is more about getting people to take a look at themselves rather than some Orwellian 'evidence' of competence.
I for one am relieved that I can stop mindlessly looking at the CPD counter and simply develop my professional skills when and how I see fit to stay up to speed.
AM

Thank you anonymous 12.3.2015 @ 04.44 p.m. for making me laugh out loud with your comments.
I support the notion of solicitors not having to take responsibility for client money. In the glory days when solicitors could 'dine out' on the interest it may have been worth it but now, even if there is any interest, it should go to the client so what's the point of solicitors having to pay the price for the 'rotten apples' amongst us. If the French can do it whilst the public respects and supports their legal advisers, then why not introduce it here.

Anon 04.23 12/3/15. I'll tell you where it all went wrong. The Law Society for the last 40 years have taken no interest in firms outside London and they have failed to take action on our behalf in numerous situations. They've allowed outside bodies to take over the running of the profession with the inevitable chaos. All they are interested in now is their oh so wonderful Excellence Awards!

What if a solicitor is sued for negligence and held liable at trial? Can he then sign the declaration? How many solicitors does the SRA think will decline to sign the declaration? Somewhere around zero, perhaps?

Because, Dean, if they didn't they would be out of a job. I predict that within ten years they will return to something like CPD points. What exactly an outfit like Central Law Training does in the meantime I am quite unable to say.

"The statement forms part of the new approach to the education and training of solicitors, moving away from the prescriptive system of continuing professional development."

I recall similar arguments being trotted out to justify the woeful Outcomes Focused Regulation regime to replace the much superior SCC. Why the SRA seems to be so intent on fixing things that aren't broke is a modern mystery.

Roma locuta est. Causa finita est".
However, it seems to me the required certification is totally ridiculous. the test is so subjective as to be meaningless.
Either the certifier is riven with self doubt and or is of so modest a disposition that he or she could not in all honesty certify themselves; or is so self satisfied and deluded that he would certify anything put in front of him (or her!).
Either way SRA should be required to annually certify that they are competent to coin these tests.

Who is competent to assess his competence? That must surely be for others to decide. All I can say is that anyone who dreamed up this madcap scheme is not competent to do whatever it is he is paid to do, assuming he knows what that is, of course.

SO, ACTING REASONABLY, I DECLARE MYSELF COMPETENT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE SRA ASSERT I SHOULD HAVE DECLARED MYSELF INCOMPETENT. I CONTINUE HOWEVER MY ASSERTION THAT WHEN I DECLARED MYSELF COMPENTENT I EXERCISED THAT JUDGMENT ACTING REASONABLY. AM I GOING ROUND IN CIRCLES? -- HEY, HEY I LOOK BACK ON MY 35 YEAR CAREER AS THE GOOD OLDE DAYS GIVEN 99% OF US THESE DAYS ARE CHEESED OFF..

The point which the SRA seems to have overlooked is that it does not regulate or judge competence. Where in the SRA Handbook does it say "you must be competent and will be committing misconduct if you are not competent"? Nowhere. So, the correct answer to the SRA's request for the declaration is "whether I am competent is not a matter which is within the regulatory remit of the SRA" or (at most) "I think I am competent, but I am capable of mistaking mistakes like everyone else, which is why I paid a lot of money for the insurance cover which you require me to take out".

Is there no end to the silliness? This is what happens when non-lawyer compliance 'industry' clerks feel bound to do something to justify their positions regulating a profession they have little or no knowledge of. Is it any wonder so many qualified solicitors are calling it quits?

I wonder how many of us will compete the form by declaring themselves incompetent. The number zero comes to mind
Probably if or when something does go wrong the SRA will ad another charge to the sheet of a false declaration

Coupled with recent announcements on proposals to put clients funds into escrow accounts, the destruction of what remains of legal aid, the creation of virtual law firms owned by rapacious corporations, the imposition of exorbitant court fees I just wonder if this sea of troubles should now make all solicitors ask themselves the fundamental question-how the hell did a once proud and respected legal profession get into such a mess?

So-you prove competence by filling out a form that says you are competent. Then, if you are not proven incompetent it was OK to have signed the form. BUT if you ARE later proved incompetent then you'll be fined/suspended for saying you were competent when you weren't. How very outcomes-focussed.

The Law Society of England and Wales

The Law Society represents solicitors in England and Wales. From negotiating with and lobbying the profession’s regulators, government and others, to offering training and advice, we’re here to help, protect and promote solicitors across England and Wales.